# Thoughts on MOO/VRML

Graeme Smith (grysmith@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca)
Fri, 23 Feb 1996 08:08:40 PST

- Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

    OK, With the Bundled Software Option, where the server comes with a library
    of "Standard Objects", I was thinking the trick would be to define a
    reasonably useful set of objects, scenes etc. Then put them on a CD ROM
    and distribute the CD ROM with the CLIENT.

    For Specific Environments, say MEDSCHOOL, you could develop specific CDROMS
    and have the client request the person put that CDROM in the player, when
    they "Entered" the class. Such a Massive Library, would distinctly improve
    the quality of the class, and create a small publishing industry oriented
    towards the generation of Environments, for that particular Client.

    On the already overheated debate about the sign on conversion problem,
    (connecting to another player), I see the problem, as one of artificial
    import, but annoyance to those of us trying to design logon systems.
    I personally did not want to use as much of the Lambda Like code in my
    system, as I ended up doing, but my first, attempt to accept the connection
    as a newt, test the connection, then transfer to the requested player, died
    when I found myself locked into the original player.

    It can be worked around, and I proved it, by managing my connections.....

    But, I have to express my annoyance with the awkwardness of it all.

    If you need to put on and take off specialist bodies, though, I think
    what you need is the ability to Act THROUGH a different body, with its
    own specific verbs etc. I see you signing on to one MOO, and walking through
    it to get to another MOO, switching bodies to be compatible with the second
    walking through it to get to a third MOO, and switching again. You can do
    that with a specific client, and we do seem to be heading towards
    sophisticated clients, but, what seems to be missing, in the development
    of clients, is the understanding that selection of a client is optional.

    I hate to push for standards.... but perhaps we should develop a class
    structure for clients?

    class 0 = telnet
    class 1 = text only Mud client (Mud el, TF)
    class 2 = www capable
    class 3 = www/video capable
    class 4 = www/VRML capable
    class 5 = ???

    Just a suggestion.

    					Grey

    GRAEME SMITH                         email: grysmith@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
    2536 138A ave Edmonton